User talk:Mike

April 14, 2010 12:16 PM MDT Hi Mike, I notice you have been creating a lot of new pages in the last few weeks, and wonder what your thoughts are on how these people figure into our mission of exposing corporate spin and government propaganda.

Thanks for any thoughts or insight you can provide.

Anne Landman, CMD Editor --- I wanted to suggest that the three of us confer by email. We really appreciate your contributions, Mike, and as an mentioned just wanted to touch base. Thank you!! lisa AT prwatch.org ---

Hi Mike--Bob Burton 18:48, 23 Jul 2006 (EDT)

I moved the articles you added to the PMC page over to the external links page. Due to the size of the PMC page and the amount of material on the subject, the external links page is best for additional articles. Thanks for your additions. Cheers - Spacegrit

Mike, I am relocating your Foundation for the Defence of Democracies article to the talk page for the already existing, and accurately labled, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Please incorporate your material into the existing article. Artificial Intelligence 08:28, 29 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Hi Mike, a couple of points on formatting and referencing:


 * to bold a name just use three like this rather than using two square brackets. (While the brackets will appear in bold, self-linking is confusing to readers who try to follow the link).
 * when adding a url as a reference it is also best to add the full reference in the External links section. This not only enables readers to view the origin of the information without having to go off the page but is also insurance if the link ever goes dead. If a link goes dead but the original full reference is included it is often possible to locate an up to date url by searching on the title. For more detail on referencing see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:References
 * It would be good to explain a little more about the background of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and where they fit in the conservative spectrum. Are they a think tank or something else? So if you have a feel for them it would be great to add some more detail in.

cheers --Bob Burton 20:08, 30 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Thanks for the Motorola stub. Just a pointer: In the future, check for variations of a company's name like this one by conducting a SW search. I made the redirect for Motorola Inc.. There may also have been Motorola, Inc., which would have been another redirect. Artificial Intelligence 06:38, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

Re Smartcard material on AEEMA page
Hi Mike, when you get a chance have a look at the note I posted to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Electrical_and_Electronic_Manufacturers_Association in response to a note by Mc. cheers --Bob Burton 17:08, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

Please could you use the summary box when making edits?
Hi Mike, I notice you're making a lot of edits today, but you're not providing a summary for any of them. It's considered good practice here on SourceWatch to explain each edit you're making in the summary box. Yes, it slows one down a little, but it makes it much easier for other editors to monitor what's going on. The information in the summary field is also useful if at some point in the future there's a dispute over an article's fairness or accuracy. So could you please use the summary box when making your edits? With thanks, --Neoconned 05:41, 13 Jun 2006 (EDT)

Hi Mike, I suspect those Aust Davos connection bio notes are quite old - possibly even as far back as 2000 when ADC hosted that big gathering in Melbourne. I have updated some of those I know but some of the others may need checking too. --Bob Burton 18:48, 23 Jul 2006 (EDT)

Hi Mike,

Welcome to Congresspedia. We appreciate your additions regarding the Partnership for Public Service. Feel free to contact me at efullmer AT congresspedia.org if you have any questions. In addition, I have provided some links to Congresspedia and Sourcewatch help pages that you may find useful when editing. We encourage you to continue helping us improve the site.


 * SourceWatch:Congresspedia article guidelines
 * Contributing to Congresspedia and SourceWatch

Elliott Fullmer, Associate Editor, 12:11, 29 September 2006 (EST)

ICG
Hi Mike, I was thinking about whether the International Crisis Group should be included in the think tanks list. I'm inclined to think it should. What do you think? --Bob Burton 00:50, 16 Oct 2006 (EDT)


 * sorry for delay, had to go fix car problems. What has you puzzled about using the talk pages? --Bob Burton 02:42, 16 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Hi Mike,

Are you based in the UK? --Davidmiller 11:46, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Third Way
Mike, perhaps you didn't check before launching a new article, but there was an existing article on the Third Way organization. I merged in the trustee list to the existing article and deleted your duplicate stub. Artificial Intelligence 06:18, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Morton Halperin
Mike, I merged the existing Halperin article with the new one that you created today. I also added a few more bio links and wikified several SW links.

Please check for existing articles before creating new ones. It is much better to expand an existing one than to have to take the time to merge duplicates.

Thanks. Artificial Intelligence 04:25, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Sarah Carey
Mike, you created duplicate articles on January 7, 2007, for Sarah Carey and Sarah C. Carey. One should have been a redirect. I have made the correction and merged the two. Artificial Intelligence 05:26, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Book
Hi Mike. Thumbs up on the book. will be in touch when I get it. cheers --Bob Burton 06:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Referencing
Hi Mike, could you please provide citations as well as reference links? Bob has actually asked you to do this before ("when adding a url as a reference it is also best to add the full reference in the External links section"). It's worth the extra trouble, and the page on SourceWatch referencing standards explicitly says you should do this. Remember, it's not a race to create as many articles as possible: quality counts as much as quantity! Cheers, --Neoconned 05:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


 * OK what you've done with Jonathan Ansfield is a start, but you need to use a fuller format for citations. For example, you wrote
 * "Biography", Accessed May 2007.
 * but the correct format should be something like
 * "Jonathan Ansfield" (biographical note). Undated, accessed May 2007.
 * Again, please see SourceWatch:References. --Neoconned 05:14, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


 * That's great. :) One final thing: it's better to use the new tags. Then instead of an External Links section, you create a References section which contains the tag. --Neoconned 05:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Please provide citations
Mike, can you PLEASE provide citations as per the SourceWatch referencing standards? I'm puzzled as to why you feel the standards don't apply to you. --Neoconned 14:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Adhere to the SW referencing policy or I will block your account
Hi Mike, You're back to your old behaviour again - failing to provide citations for the articles you create.

I really appreciate all the hard work you put into SourceWatch, but I have to ask: whose job do you think it is to go back through those articles and put in the citations? Is it Bob's? Is it mine? Is it AI's? It's yours, Mike. Why are you too plain lazy to do so?

I asked you to stop doing this before. And what happened was you modified your behaviour for a brief time, and then went back to your old ways. Furthermore, you never reply to messages on your talk page. Why? Your refusal to communicate about this issue is extremely annoying. In fact, I've been checking your contributions record and as far as I can tell, you've never made a talk page posting. To anyone. About anything. I find that extraordinary. Do you not understand how to use the talk page system? Or do you think that it's not worth communicating with other contributors?

Unless you stop ignoring SW's referencing policy, I am going to block your account. And that doesn't mean just adding the citations for the articles you create in future. It means going back through all the articles I can see in the list of Recent Changes (and more), and fixing them. Before you create any more articles. Remember: each reference should be provided with a matching citation.

And this time, please reply to this message. If you think I'm wrong, please say so here, on this talk page, and explain your reasoning. If you think that the referencing policy is wrong, please explain why. Please communicate, Mike. Start using the talk pages.

I'm going to check back here later on. If things haven't improved, I'm blocking you. Finally, can I suggest you switch to using the ref tags for citations. Perhaps you'll find it easier to remember to put in the citations if you do that. Remember: quality, not quantity. I don't like being rude, but this issue needs to be dealt with. --Neoconned 02:08, 4 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Mike, I just reviewed the comments which I have left for you on this, your talk page alone. You have never responded to my comments here and I do not recall you ever responding to them elsewhere. Neoconned is right to be angry about this. Perhaps wrongly, I stopped checking your work since I simply could not be "clean up" for every article you either created our touched, and began ignoring the messes that you have been leaving all over SW/CP. I will echo Neoconned's sentiments&mdash;please stop! what you are doing and fix what you have done. I have said this many, many times, SW is better than this. Artificial Intelligence 04:22, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Editing
Hi sorry about not posting notes. I agreed with you (but didnt respond (actually I have never used this function before, which is one of the main reasons I didnt respond), and have been adding correct references into nearly all my additions since the last note. That said the website details wouldnt come up for the very last page I created yesterday, although I will add those in now.

I was under the impression that I didnt have to provide a full reference when I was just using a sentence from a groups own biography, so I will reread the referencing notes, and come back to this. Speak to you again soon mike

more
I reread the referencing section and perhaps it would be clearer if it said that I need to use the number referencing system using the ref thing which you are using on all your new pages. I guess I picked up the referencing style I use (that is not providing full ref details for a groups bio page) from earlier sourcewatch pages like for example

Progressive Policy Council Government Media Unit (Queensland)

I will start to use the ref system from now on, and I will start going over my older articles to update them.


 * Hi Mike, Thanks for your constructive reply. I'm glad that you're going to take the trouble to learn how to use the ref tags. It's definitely the way forward. And please stay in touch on the talk pages from now on.


 * >>"and have been adding correct references into nearly all my additions since the last note."


 * There was a series of articles you contributed yesterday which lacked any citations... that's why I felt a warning was in order.


 * >>"I was under the impression that I didnt have to provide a full reference when I was just using a sentence from a groups own biography"


 * No. That isn't anywhere in the references policy page. If you had actually read that page (a link to which has been posted on this talk page several times), you'd know that. And think about it - why would that make any sense? The purpose of referencing is for the reader to be able to quickly and easily verify where information in an article comes from. If the information lacks a reference, how is the reader supposed to know that the information came from the group's own website. Infer it from the style? And what about groups with large websites with many pages? Should the reader hunt through the group's entire website for the piece of information which you deem not worth providing a reference for? Hardly satisfactory.


 * The whole idea is that SW contributors should shift the burden of verification as much as possible from the reader, to the author. In other words, more work for you (by writing the article more carefully, taking more time over it, and providing convenient references), and less work for the reader.


 * Please also note that references to material on a group's own website should point directly to the relevant page. Please do not think it's ok just to use a link to the homepage. If material is sourced from more than one page on that group's website, use more than one reference. Again, try to focus on making it as easy as possible for the reader to verify assertions in the article. And try to forget about making life easy for yourself. :)


 * I'd like you to hold back from creating any new articles until you have sorted out your considerable backlog. I just picked three articles entirely at random from it, all of them created by you in June. Azzam Tamimi had an external links section but it was blank. Brian Byrd did have a citation in its External Links section but it had been incorrectly formatted and wasn't displaying properly. And Viviana Kristicevic didn't have any external links or references at all. Those honestly were the first three I clicked on, and all were unsatisfactory. I don't enjoy picking holes in your work, but you need to sort out what you've already put in SW before you create any more articles, and you need to show you're capable of paying attention to detail. Raise your game, Mike! :) --Neoconned 05:39, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

You are blocked for 48 hours
Hi Mike, you have almost completely ignored my last message, and made at best only a cursory attempt to sort out the huge backlog of articles into which you haven't yet bothered to put citations. A quick check of other parts of your contributions log shows scores of articles created by you which still do not have citations to accompany the references, and which you have not yet fixed. Here's a quick sample: Mark Hanis, Gayle E. Smith, and John Shattuck. Those didn't take me long to find, since there are so many of your articles in this half-finished state.

Meanwhile, you have continued creating scores of new articles. I realize that creating a new article is more satisfying than fixing problems with older ones. However, the responsibility really is on you to sort out this backlog of problems - especially given that you were repeatedly requested in the past to avoid making these mistakes, and more or less ignored those requests. If you'd listened to people a little more in the past, you wouldn't have this mountain of broken articles to fix.

Now perhaps you didn't reply to my last message because you disagreed with it, or felt it was high-handed of me, or whatever. In that case, fine, it's your right to disagree and who knows, maybe you're even right. But please say so here: again, it's your refusal to communicate which is incredibly frustrating.

Please, sort out your backlog before creating new articles. I'm going to block you for 48hrs this time, and when the block expires I'd like you to stick to sorting out your backlog as requested, and not create any new articles for the time being. I'm doing this because otherwise I really do not believe you'll ever make the effort to sort out your backlog. You seem to believe it's someone else's problem. --Neoconned 09:47, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Mike editing
Sorry for not replying, I just thought that the fact that I immediately went through the last 500 changes (which took the best part of a day) ensuring that they were all referenced fully was what you had intended me to do. I would have done more, but I cannot work out how to view all the pages I have created. I know that I have sometimes been sloppy at creating pages, something which I will no longer do. As you will have noted, all of the new pages I created in the two days before I was blocked were fully referenced. Of course I dont mind going over my old pages to fully reference them, although I have come across quite a few biography pages that have been created by other sourcewatch editors which are not fully referenced. I know this is no excuse to do it myself, but I guess I thought I could do the same when I started. From now on though I will fully reference to prevent other people thinkint they can do the same.

If you can provide me with a way to find all the pages I have worked on I will steadily work through the list updating them all. But is still OK for me to create new pages as I am currently trying to publish some articles based on the research I have been carrying out on SW. Once again I am sorry for their being scores of articles not fully referenced, but I guess that is partly because I have created a few thousand pages. Sorry for wasting your time on this matter, best wishes mike


 * Hi Mike, well that's fair enough I guess... could you at least try to fix as many old articles as you create new ones? It's very simple to access previous pages in your contributions history. You just click the link that says "Older 500" on the page which I provided a link to.


 * You're right that no contributor, including myself, manages to stick to the referencing and formatting rules 100% of the time. The reason I've raised these issues with you in particular, is your consistent failure to stick to the rules, the prodigious number of articles you were creating that broke the rules, and your apparent reluctance to heed requests to improve the quality of your edits, or even discuss those requests. I'm afraid those factors rather make you stand out.


 * When it's a new contributor to the site the sysops generally turn a blind eye, as the last thing we want to do is chase new contributors away. But you've been editing here for over a year now. Another point worth making is that investing a little time in better understanding how this wiki works would pay dividends. No-one expects you to become a geek, but taking the trouble to understand how to operate basic features of the site such as the talk pages, and drilling back through your contributions history is something you should have mastered after a year of using this site! Rgds --Neoconned 08:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

You are still under-referencing your articles
Hi Mike, how's it going with the backlog?

I'm afraid that you are still under-referencing your new articles. For example in Alexander L. George, the sole reference you have given does not support the following information:


 * Board Members Emeriti, Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University
 * Member, Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict

It is extremely important that information about affiliations and institutional roles be properly referenced. I hate to repeat myself, but again:
 * Slow down.
 * It's not a race to create as many articles as possible.
 * Quality over quantity.
 * Pay more attention to detail.

Please reply to this message... Cheers, --Neoconned 03:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Details about affiliations
Hi there. i would like to hear what other people think about this. it seems to me to be massive overkill to provide a reference for the board details for every person (on their individual pages).

to get to the fully referenced page all one has to do is to click on the link, then look at the board of directors. i think adding individual refs will just result in lots of peoples sourcewatch pages being full of dead links, as it seems that organisations seem to change the page address of their board of directors (etc) quite regually (at least as often as they vote in new people).

best wishes mike


 * First of all, the current rules (on the referencing standards page) are that you should provide direct, convenient references for all information on a page. Now by all means let's have a discussion about whether those rules are correct - but in the meantime, I'd like you to stick to the current rules.


 * Let's take a look at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University article. This is one of the very earliest articles in SourceWatch - it was created by AI in May 2003 and hasn't been touched since then. It lacks a direct reference, as is now mandated by the SourceWatch referencing guidelines, to the information about the Board Members Emeriti. This is no criticism of AI - those were very early days on this wiki.


 * In fact, Alexander L. George no longer appears on the current list of Board Members Emeriti.


 * So there we have it. To my not very great surprise, you are uncritically copying information from other SourceWatch articles without taking the trouble to see whether the information in those articles is still correct. Again, your obsession with creating as many new articles as possible is stopping you from thinking critically, or trying to ensure a high quality result. I think this makes the case by itself for maintaining the current rules - if you had taken the trouble to add a ref, you might have spotted that George is no longer affiliated with the Watson Institute. Instead, all you managed to achieve was to double the number of times that piece of incorrect information occurs in this wiki.


 * >>i think adding individual refs will just
 * >>result in lots of peoples sourcewatch
 * >>pages being full of dead links, as it seems that organisations seem to change
 * >>the page address of their board of directors (etc) quite regually (at least
 * >>as often as they vote in new people).


 * Nonsense. It will result in high quality articles with direct references to support the assertions made. And it will result in people like you taking a little more time and trouble to check that they're not putting out-of-date information into this wiki.


 * Again, please slow down. Think quality not quantity. Show that you can pay attention to detail. These things are far more meaningful than creating scores of poor quality articles. Rgds, --Neoconned 12:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

backlog
I went though alot of my old stuff and will continue to do so, and will continue adding full refs to old article whenever I come across them. mike

editing
just one point for now. You note that "Alexander L. George no longer appears on the current list of Board Members Emeriti." You add that "if you had taken the trouble to add a ref, you might have spotted that George is no longer affiliated with the Watson Institute." That is probably because his life has ended, as I noted in the SW article. With regards to most of the affiliation links I am making between people, most of the information I am adding is not incorrect. In fact I know this to be the case because I am what seems to be the only contributor to sourcewatch who is interested in investigating progressive groups. Thus most of the groups I link to were actually created by me in the last 6 months or so.

Personally I find you language quite frustrating and I am sure that if I wasnt so even tempered that I would have given up on contributing to SW some time agao (something I am sadly actually contemplating doing now). You noted "Again, your obsession with creating as many new articles as possible is stopping you from thinking critically, or trying to ensure a high quality result." I dont have an obsession, I am purely interested in doing some useful investigative journalism. Granted most of my pages dont have alot of critical analysis on them, but I didnt know that this was a prerequisite for starting a page. I was under the (perhaps false) impression that SW was about making making links between people and organisations.

FInally I think it would be fruitful to have a discussion about whether the referencing rules might be altered to account for my argument.


 * Hi Mike, Fair enough, I should have looked at the article more carefully and seen that he's deceased. But how can readers of the article actually verify that he was affiliated with the Watson Institute? Come to that, how do you know he was affiliated with that organization? Because of what someone else wrote four years ago, in the earliest days of this wiki? Did you actually check he used to be affiliated with that organization? There are no references provided to support that assertion. Here's the link that does support it. You need to be learning how to use resources like this to back up your assertions.


 * I think it's great that you're creating these articles, and that you're investigating progressive groups. I just want to make sure that standards are kept up, something which up until now you've been failing to manage. So believe it or not, our aims are the same. I just want to make sure you're not letting yourself down by creating a slew of poor quality articles.


 * "Thinking critically" here does not mean analysis, it means thinking hard about where the information in an article comes from, and how easy it is for the reader to verify it.


 * If you don't like my use of language, sorry, but we've had a year of other editors making extremely polite requests to you on your talk page, and you basically ignoring them. Something needed to be done to get your attention. --Neoconned 13:42, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for adding the link to Freedom's Watch; however, it was already posted in the External articles section. External resources are for background links, profiles and other non-articles. Artificial Intelligence 05:52, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Category Tags
Hi Mike, one small point. It is worth noting that for a Category tag to work the second work in any tag needs to match the lower or upper case format of the actual category. For example, Category:united kingdom will read the U as if it were either upper or lower case but the k as lower case. Because the actual Catg tag for the United Kingdom is upper case, a lower case k won't work. Also, I notice that you have added a Category:peace/war tag when the catg tag is War/peace. With thanks --Bob Burton 21:09, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

SW: Editing of SANE (UK)
Thanks Mike for adding a link to Sane Australia :) If this is the wrong place to comment, please delete - this is all new and confusing to me, I'm still struggling to work out how to do the simplest of things.

Israel lobby
Mike, I did not delete any links. They may have just been incorporated elsewhere. If you can point to something in particular, I will be glad to reincorporate them. I think that what you may be referring to are the links that I moved from The Power of the Israel Lobby: Its Origins and Growth (2006) to the pro-Israel lobby article. One is about the research/paper and the other is more generic and is where I moved the links. They are not gone, just placed more appropriately. Artificial Intelligence 04:25, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

israel
OK, I had just had links to the specific articles by Chomsky et al in the Left Criticism bit as I thought they would be easier to find there, I thought I had a Zunes article there as well, I must have not added one. sorry about that, mike

FSI Descriptor
Hi Mike, I'm just wondering whether we should tag the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies as a think tank? You are probably more familiar with their work than i but at a glance it looks to me like they are probably at the more academic end of the think tanks spectrum. Do you have a view? --Bob Burton 00:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

academia
I reckon not a tt, as it is an academic research group, mike

Is this the group?
Mike, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sumate for query. cheers --Bob Burton 06:08, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

sumate
yes it is, sorry I forgot to add the basic details. I got distracted, mike

Your profiles template
Hi Mike, a small point - I noticed that the template you are using for your new profiles has "Other SourceWatch" rather than "Other SourceWatch Articles". Could you tweak your template a little. cheers --Bob Burton 21:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks
Mike, thanks for fixing up the IPS page. cheers --Bob Burton 20:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Liberal Foundations and the Environmental Movement
Mike, I've been creating pages related to this article you started in 2006, and I linked them in the article and made it a stub. John Stauber

note
hi mike, see the note at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_J._Barnet cheers--Bob Burton 17:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Mike, donde esta?
Mike, I see you haven't done any work in SW for months. I hope you return, I really appreciate your contributions on left, liberal and environmental organizations! John Stauber John AT PRWatch.org Feb1, 2008

category Query
Hi Mike, I'm doing an end of the year clean up of category tags and noticed that the Transnational Institute is the only page linked to in - it was a page you created back in Jan so I'm wondering if there is another category you think it would be better added to. I'm relaxed about creating such a category but I suspect there is another one you have created subsequently that you have been using to index similar articles. best wishes --Bob Burton 15:13, 15 December 2008 (EST)

MIKE: I should probably use that category more often, but generally use either human rights, democracy, or war/peace neither of which I think fits the transnational institute. Perhaps it should go under think tank.

Source
Hi Mike, we need s source for this page -- Jeff Birrell cheers --Bob Burton 05:56, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Re Edit changes
Hi Mike -- I made some changes to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict page yesterday -- as you were one of the contributors to that it might be worth you having a look at Talk:International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. cheers --Bob Burton 20:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Blue Sky
I had a little dig around -- see Talk:Blue Sky Events. best I can come up with.--Bob Burton 01:51, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia as a source
Hi Mike, I just noticed that on the Marian Wilkinson page and a few others you had copied across material from wikipedia. Two points:


 * when material is copied across which represents a substantial proportion of our article (such as for a stub), we add the tag at the foot of the page under the category tags. This automatically brings up an attribution to Wikipedia;


 * while we are open to importing material from Wikipedia -- where it is well referenced -- as a general rule we don't use Wikipedia itself as a source. The reasons for this are: a) if the original Wikipedia page is not referenced itself, readers are left to check for themselves whether the material is accurate or not. As the aim of our referencing policy is to ensure that readers can check the veracity of information directly, citing unreferenced Wikipedia material doesn't help readers or us;


 * if material that is unreferenced on Wikipedia and imported into SW, it might be corrected on Wikipedia but not on SW (given Wikipedia pages tend to score higher than ours, at least initially).

So in order to ensure high quality referencing, we prefer to avoid relying on Wikipedia as a source.--Bob Burton 21:50, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I only just noticed you comment when I logged in a few minutes ago and I wrote an email immediately. The page you deleted is interesting as the NAACP are not quite the same organization that they used to be. mike

openD
Hi Michael; OpenDemo = dodgy organization. The people in the OpenTerror have ties with all sorts of right wing terrorologist groups, especially in Spain. Kind rgds --Antidotto 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

add to affiliation section
Hi Mike;

You should add the "member of Democratiya" to the Affiliation section...

Kind rgds --Antidotto 15:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)